I was talking about the differences between the sexes, and found that it became very regular for people to say that the performance differences between sexes didn't matter to things like employment.

I think they don't, overall. Individuals should be paid based on the work done, not on sex (or height, or charm, or ability to negotiate salary)

I do think, however, that it DOES matter to groups, so the 'gender wage-gap' myth would be affected. Since men, as a group, outperform women in every measurable sports competition I can find (there are only two I could find where women regularly outperform men) I would expect that carries over into every competitive area, such that it should be reflected in average earnings.

I mean, I still enjoy watching female competitors, I just don't delude myself into thinking they could compete across the sexes in strength, speed, endurance or shit-talking.
So the main question - since men outperform so consistently, does it matter to the average income of the large groups 'women' and 'men'?

I think your categories are too large to generalize. To really get at the heart of sports performance, you have to look at DNA. For example, there are populations where the females could easily outrun the males of other populations. It's all about what everyone was doing to survive 3 to 10k years ago, what environment they lived in and what people inherited.

I love running. Learning to enjoy it, and enjoying it changed my life.

Changed my outlook on the value of athletics, too.

Have you an opinion on the original question? Or are you just hinting that you want to join me on my run today?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

I think your categories are too large to generalize. To really get at the heart of sports performance, you have to look at DNA. For example, there are populations where the females could easily outrun the males of other populations. It's all about what everyone was doing to survive 3 to 10k years ago, what environment they lived in and what people inherited.

True enough (or might be) but it doesn't change the current situation.

Men outperform women in EVERY athletic endeavour (except maybe for endurance swim)

Since it is so consistent and predictable that they win the overwhelming number of competitions, it makes sense to me that in a large sample, men would outperform women in earning, as well.

I don't think this means they should be paid differently, just that they will end up 'winning' high salaried positions and earnings more often if they are men.

Which female populations regularly outperform male populations? I would be VERY interested to see it. Africans seem to be the fastest women around, but they still fall a bit behind men everywhere...

I think your categories are too large to generalize. To really get at the heart of sports performance, you have to look at DNA. For example, there are populations where the females could easily outrun the males of other populations. It's all about what everyone was doing to survive 3 to 10k years ago, what environment they lived in and what people inherited.

By the way, I think comparing the incomes of men vs women is also 'too large to generalize', but many people still take it pretty seriously.

I love running. Learning to enjoy it, and enjoying it changed my life.

Changed my outlook on the value of athletics, too.

....Or are you just hinting that you want to join me on my run today?

I never hated running, however, I have to keep jogs under 2 miles or I risk ITBS flaring up in my left knee, plus I find to stressful on joints in the long run so I stick to the above <2 miles or do interval sprints (both on hillyhills)

Quote:

Have you an opinion on the original question?

Not really, I gave up watching sports except MMA and I find the female fights just as exciting as the males so I think they should be paid equally.

I think your categories are too large to generalize. To really get at the heart of sports performance, you have to look at DNA. For example, there are populations where the females could easily outrun the males of other populations. It's all about what everyone was doing to survive 3 to 10k years ago, what environment they lived in and what people inherited.

By the way, I think comparing the incomes of men vs women is also 'too large to generalize', but many people still take it pretty seriously.

I think it's been pretty well shown the difference in incomes is due to social/behavior factors. Sure in the 1950's women were paid less than men because society as a whole felt women only worked till they got married. But that idea is going away. There is still the stigma that women won't stick around and dedicate to a career because they will stop to have babies, but that is also going away as society makes it easier for women to work AND have babies. Being able to work from home and telecommute are big factors here.

Also, its been shown women don't negotiate or demand pay raises as well or as often as men. That is a learned social behavior that can change. Men tend to continue to keep in touch with fraternity brothers and others in their social networks and help each other out. Women don't. Another behavior that can change.

It is a problem and pressure need to be applied in order to keep focusing on correcting it but I see progress on all fronts.

It's my considered opinion that most people run wrong. MAF would direct most to run most of their miles slower (as a clear example)

I get it though...as long as you can get your cardio somehow, and as long as it is effective at improving your heart, that's the big important one.

I've been playing with tracking 'heartbeats per kilometer' as a metric which could show improved cardiac function/efficiency. I'm not good enough with API's, math or spreadsheets though

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmicronPersei8

Quote:

Have you an opinion on the original question?

Not really, I gave up watching sports except MMA and I find the female fights just as exciting as the males so I think they should be paid equally.

Then you should pay them the same.

However, most people can see clearly that the males are more competitive (which is the point I was making)

So I think it's fine to pay them the same, but it would be the viewers who really decided.

Have you seen Fallon Fox? What do you think of their domination of female MMA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

I think your categories are too large to generalize. To really get at the heart of sports performance, you have to look at DNA. For example, there are populations where the females could easily outrun the males of other populations. It's all about what everyone was doing to survive 3 to 10k years ago, what environment they lived in and what people inherited.

By the way, I think comparing the incomes of men vs women is also 'too large to generalize', but many people still take it pretty seriously.

I think it's been pretty well shown the difference in incomes is due to social/behavior factors. Sure in the 1950's women were paid less than men because society as a whole felt women only worked till they got married. But that idea is going away. There is still the stigma that women won't stick around and dedicate to a career because they will stop to have babies, but that is also going away as society makes it easier for women to work AND have babies. Being able to work from home and telecommute are big factors here.

Also, its been shown women don't negotiate or demand pay raises as well or as often as men. That is a learned social behavior that can change. Men tend to continue to keep in touch with fraternity brothers and others in their social networks and help each other out. Women don't. Another behavior that can change.

It is a problem and pressure need to be applied in order to keep focusing on correcting it but I see progress on all fronts.

So are you suggesting that no matter how much performance difference there is, there won't be a tangible difference in a competitive world such as most of work?

It seems there is a big conflict there...

I agree that women are choosing to earn less. It is because they have choice in the matter.

It's a good choice usually, as far as I can see, but the opposite of profitable.

It's my considered opinion that most people run wrong. MAF would direct most to run most of their miles slower (as a clear example)

I get it though...as long as you can get your cardio somehow, and as long as it is effective at improving your heart, that's the big important one.

I've been playing with tracking 'heartbeats per kilometer' as a metric which could show improved cardiac function/efficiency. I'm not good enough with API's, math or spreadsheets though

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmicronPersei8

Quote:

Have you an opinion on the original question?

Not really, I gave up watching sports except MMA and I find the female fights just as exciting as the males so I think they should be paid equally.

Then you should pay them the same.

However, most people can see clearly that the males are more competitive (which is the point I was making)

So I think it's fine to pay them the same, but it would be the viewers who really decided.

Have you seen Fallon Fox? What do you think of their domination of female MMA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeluvia

I think your categories are too large to generalize. To really get at the heart of sports performance, you have to look at DNA. For example, there are populations where the females could easily outrun the males of other populations. It's all about what everyone was doing to survive 3 to 10k years ago, what environment they lived in and what people inherited.

By the way, I think comparing the incomes of men vs women is also 'too large to generalize', but many people still take it pretty seriously.

I think it's been pretty well shown the difference in incomes is due to social/behavior factors. Sure in the 1950's women were paid less than men because society as a whole felt women only worked till they got married. But that idea is going away. There is still the stigma that women won't stick around and dedicate to a career because they will stop to have babies, but that is also going away as society makes it easier for women to work AND have babies. Being able to work from home and telecommute are big factors here.

Also, its been shown women don't negotiate or demand pay raises as well or as often as men. That is a learned social behavior that can change. Men tend to continue to keep in touch with fraternity brothers and others in their social networks and help each other out. Women don't. Another behavior that can change.

It is a problem and pressure need to be applied in order to keep focusing on correcting it but I see progress on all fronts.

So are you suggesting that no matter how much performance difference there is, there won't be a tangible difference in a competitive world such as most of work?

It seems there is a big conflict there...

I agree that women are choosing to earn less. It is because they have choice in the matter.

It's a good choice usually, as far as I can see, but the opposite of profitable.

That is hardly what I said. I said it's a social and educational issue that still needs work.

When you don't know how to do something, you can hardly CHOOSE to do it.

That is hardly what I said. I said it's a social and educational issue that still needs work.

When you don't know how to do something, you can hardly CHOOSE to do it.

OK, let me try again.

Do you think the HUGE differences shown in sport when looking at mens vs womens performance is a difference which will show in earnings/work performance across the same groups?

In other words, are these sports differences real enough to make a difference in statistical income?

Individually I don't think so, but as groups...well, men are outpacing women at just about everything they do, as far as strength, speed and endurance. It only stands to reason that (aside from those other differences you mentioned) this would carry over into other areas of competition, like capitalism.

Of course women are making different choices around career, which will also have an effect. I hope we don't (as a society) make the correction so they can work more...I hope it goes the other way so more of us can work less, but that isn't really relevant at all to the main question.

Maybe it's clearer to ask this way...With men being stronger, faster, and capable of greater endurance, why would you think that they should show parity earning-wise?